When you hear the phrase "Great Orator" does Billy Mays jump into your mind and sell you some sponges?

Hey, he got the job done! We all know who he is!

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

You don't count, seeing as how you stopped watching television somewhere in the late 80s, early 90s.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

Really? House? I'm not surprised by the other three, though. Not at all.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

And I was going to ask about the later seasons, because I stopped watching after 2, myself. Veeeeery interesting.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

OMG, that was so awful. So bigotry and racism with the word "God" thrown in, it's allllll good!

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

For the longest time, I was actually curious about this myself because it did sound similar to the language used by many "white supremacists". That viewpoint is of course contrary to Orthodoxy, so I decided I would ask Br. Nathanael himself. Ultimately, his (racial) view is identical to that of Oswald Spengler (specifically, what is advocated in his book, The Hour of Decision). This is effectively the idea that races identifying themselves as such can form powerful blocs capable of resisting outside influence (in this case, Jewry). He is not a supremacist, however, because he does not attribute any superiority to whites in particular (this is why the Nazis grew to despise Spengler). Such a philosophy would encourage racial/ethical majorities in ever section of the globe (i.e. China for Chinese, Arabia for Arabs, etc.). From Br. Nathanael's viewpoint, a white racial majority (in America) can serve as a buffer against foreign influences and ultimately protect the minorities already here.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this position, but he certainly is not advocating any sort of racial superiority (after all, he is attacking his fellow Jews).

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 12:48:28 AM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

For the longest time, I was actually curious about this myself because it did sound similar to the language used by many "white supremacists". That viewpoint is of course contrary to Orthodoxy, so I decided I would ask Br. Nathanael himself. Ultimately, his (racial) view is identical to that of Oswald Spengler (specifically, what is advocated in his book, The Hour of Decision). This is effectively the idea that races identifying themselves as such can form powerful blocs capable of resisting outside influence (in this case, Jewry).

The modern ideology of racialism is based on heretical anthropology- the notion that several different "races" around the world just happened to evolve separately into homo sapiens. What actually defines a given "race" is subject to the winds of ideological change; moreover, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

"I don't think I'm superior to you, I just want you out of my country" is still a completely reprehensible and anti-Christian attitude.

Quote

He is not a supremacist, however, because he does not attribute any superiority to whites in particular.

Then he would not promote whiteness as an essential element in preserving Christian culture, nor blame our multiracial makeup for the decline of Christianity in the US. Many of the non-white immigrants coming to the US are themselves Christians but that has no bearing on his attitude. He obviously thinks there is something called "white Christian civilization" which is superior and not only because it's Christian.

Quote

Such a philosophy would encourage racial/ethical majorities

That's the problem- the notion that a "race" will give rise to a certain set of ethical principles, and that people of different "races" can't share a common ethical vision. The Church is the ultimate refutation of this. The common chalice of the eucharist is a unity, between many different peoples, which is far more profound than any petty contrivance about race or nation. Someone who claims to be an Orthodox Christian but cannot abide alongside fellow human beings drinks condemnation to himself by dividing Christ.

Quote

in ever section of the globe (i.e. China for Chinese, Arabia for Arabs, etc.). From Br. Nathanael's viewpoint, a white racial majority (in America) can serve as a buffer against foreign influences and ultimately protect the minorities already here.

We've had a white racial majority for quite some time now. The minorities are only protected lately because they stood up for themselves.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

The modern ideology of racialism is based on heretical anthropology- the notion that several different "races" around the world just happened to evolve separately into homo sapiens. What actually defines a given "race" is subject to the winds of ideological change; moreover, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Then you misunderstand Br. Nathnanael's position. The idea of a race is entirely subject to self-identification. Whether people identify themselves as broad catagory, such white (what Br. Nathanael advocates) or something more specific, say English or German is entirely their decision. Under this philosophy, one could argue that each has its own usage. A race is simply a group sharing similar characteristics. Like all forms of taxonomy, it is entirely subjective.

Then he would not promote whiteness as an essential element in preserving Christian culture, nor blame our multiracial makeup for the decline of Christianity in the US. Many of the non-white immigrants coming to the US are themselves Christians but that has no bearing on his attitude. He obviously thinks there is something called "white Christian civilization" which is superior and not only because it's Christian.

Br. Nathanael's view could be summed up as maintaining a white bloc capable of resisting Jewish influence (Christianity being the moral solidification of that bloc). Br. Nathanael has never advocated white supremacy of any sort. but has defended the white majority on the grounds that it can be a tremendous bulwark against International Jewry. His arguments are based on effectiveness, not a lofty racial ideals.

Br. Nathanael has argued that a system composed of various races (with no clear majority) could be effectively dominated by Jewry. Racial wars (subtly promoted by the Zionist media and Hollywood) would devastate the country internally, allowing the only organized minority (Jewry) to rise to greater prominence.

That's the problem- the notion that a "race" will give rise to a certain set of ethical principles, and that people of different "races" can't share a common ethical vision. The Church is the ultimate refutation of this. The common chalice of the eucharist is a unity, between many different peoples, which is far more profound than any petty contrivance about race or nation. Someone who claims to be an Orthodox Christian but cannot abide alongside fellow human beings drinks condemnation to himself by dividing Christ.

My mistake. I intended to type ethnic rather than ethical.

Br. Nathanael differs from White Nationalism on this point. Rather than basing ethics around racial constructs, it is entirely centered in Christianity. His idea of white Christendom is a political ideal, not a religious one. Being an Orthodox Christian, Br. Nathanael most clearly understands the unifying and multi-racial nature of the Church.

Keep in mind Iconodule, I don't necessarily disagree with you. Racial identification was not part of the early Church, nor is it rooted in Orthodoxy. I also do not believe it to be necessary weapon against Jewish domination. I will, however, defend Br. Nathanael against false accusations. He has never espoused the idea that whites are superior to other races nor has he promoted hatred of any sort. Ultimately, I believe he is wrong, but not malevolent or heretical.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

The modern ideology of racialism is based on heretical anthropology- the notion that several different "races" around the world just happened to evolve separately into homo sapiens. What actually defines a given "race" is subject to the winds of ideological change; moreover, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Then you misunderstand Br. Nathnanael's position. The idea of a race is entirely subject to self-identification. Whether people identify themselves as broad catagory, such white (what Br. Nathanael advocates) or something more specific, say English or German is entirely their decision. Under this philosophy, one could argue that each has its own usage. A race is simply a group sharing similar characteristics. Like all forms of taxonomy, it is entirely subjective.

That may be what you believe but I'm not sure why you think Br. Nathanael agrees with you. He is clearly supportive of the broad goals of white nationalism- he just wants to make sure they include "Christianity" in their ideology. White nationalism completely falls apart if they accept that races are fluid, malleable categories.

"I don't think I'm superior to you, I just want you out of my country" is still a completely reprehensible and anti-Christian attitude.

Was it reprehensible when the Hebrews drove the Canaanites out of Canaan?

Gee, I don't know. Do you think it's still okay to completely massacre a town, including the children? A couple things changed since the Old Testament, don't you think?

Quote

Br. Nathanael's view could be summed up as maintaining a white bloc capable of resisting Jewish influence (Christianity being the moral solidification of that bloc). Br. Nathanael has never advocated white supremacy of any sort. but has defended the white majority on the grounds that it can be a tremendous bulwark against International Jewry. His arguments are based on effectiveness, not a lofty racial ideals.

If the "white bloc" were so effective at containing "International Jewry" then how come the Jews (supposedly) came to control everything when the "white" nations were at the height of their world domination? I guess it's time for whites to move over and let another race take on the mantle of Joo Resisters, since they clearly blew their best opportunities a long time ago. Actually, if a tiny minority like the Jews are really so darn clever as to dominate the world then I'd say let 'em have it. Bravo for them!

Quote

Br. Nathanael has argued that a system composed of various races (with no clear majority) could be effectively dominated by Jewry. Racial wars (subtly promoted by the Zionist media and Hollywood) would devastate the country internally, allowing the only organized minority (Jewry) to rise to greater prominence.

This thinking is so insanely absurd. I'm not sure how you could even take it seriously. Then again I'm not sure why I'm trying to have a serious discussion with someone who says "International Jewry" with a straight face...

And how exactly are you to achieve this "white bloc" without fomenting racial wars?

Quote

Br. Nathanael differs from White Nationalism on this point. Rather than basing ethics around racial constructs, it is entirely centered in Christianity. His idea of white Christendom is a political ideal, not a religious one.

Then he would have no interest in white nationalism. He would be saying, for instance, "Let us open our arms to our Mexican Christian brothers." So why isn't he?

Quote

Being an Orthodox Christian, Br. Nathanael most clearly understands the unifying and multi-racial nature of the Church.

He's not an Orthodox Christian. He is a pagan ideologue in monk's robes.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake